Archeological Testing of Two Sites on Northern Skidaway Island, Chatham County, Georgia

Southeastern Archeological Services conducted archeological testing of two sites on northern Skidaway Island for the firm of Hussey, Gay, Bell, and DeYoung, Inc. The sites are on property owned by the University System of Georgia. Both sites consist primarily of prehistoric artifact scatters and shell middens. One of the sites (9CH127) was first recorded by Chester DePratter (1974a) on a reconnaissance level survey of University System property in 1974. A recent survey of the 15 acre "Avian Tract" revisited this site, and recorded a second midden site (9CH826) to the north (Pluckhahn 1995a). Based on the results of shovel tests excavated at 20 meter intervals, both sites appeared to include substantial deposits capable of yielding significant, new information on prehistoric settlement and subsistence, and each was recommended potentially eligible to the National Register of Historic Places. The northern portion of site 9CH826, which extended beyond the limits of the Avian Tract, was subsequently shovel tested on a second survey of a larger portion of University System property, and the recommendation for this site was reiterated (Pluckhahn 1995b). Although there appeared to be significant deposits on portions of both sites, there also appeared to be areas where the artifacts and shell were sparse and highly disturbed. In general, it seemed that the midden deposits were thicker and contained more artifacts with increasing proximity to the edge of the bluff. The engineering firm wished to preserve the most significant portions of the site with a 100 foot (30 m) buffer. It was determined that a testing program would be initiated to investigate the nature and integrity of the portions of the sites that fall more than 100 feet (30 m) from the edge of the bluff. Accordingly, we returned to the Avian Tract in late July and early August, 1995 to test sites 9CH127 and 9CH826. This testing involved the excavation of a series of backhoe trenches at 15 m intervals. The use of a backhoe allowed for the quick removal of the plowzone layer and the detection of the presence or absence of cultural features. Features, in the form of storage and trash pits, were identified on each of the sites. As expected, these features were primarily restricted to the eastern margins of the areas tested. Postmolds were infrequent on both sites, suggesting that any prehistoric structures must have been located closer to the bluff. On site 9CH127, the significant portion of the site extends to just west of a small road that crosses the site. We recommend that a buffer that extends a distance of 140 feet from a survey line on top of the bluff would be adequate to protect this portion of the site. Although a few trash pits were identified to the west of this proposed buffer, these appeared to be isolated features, and we feel that our testing of this area has effectively mitigated the loss of this portion of the site. On site 9CH826, an area of intact midden deposits and high artifact density was identified to the west of the proposed 100 foot buffer. This area, delineated on maps in this report, should also be preserved in situ. The remaining portions of the site contained only very sparse midden deposits, and no cultural features. Again, we feel that the testing has adequately explored the portions of the site falling outside the proposed buffer, and that development of the remainder of the site will not adversely affect any significant cultural resources. If development is to take place within the demarcated significant portion of either site, it should be preceded by mitigative archeological data recovery.